GT500 Dyno Results

[Cobradvr]

After a little tuning and a big Whipple the results are in....

 

[Shelby#18]

I like that!!!!

 

[GTMikey]

You should show this to the guys over at this Gt500 forum, they go nuts for this stuff:

http://www.shelbyforums.com/forums/2007-2008-shelby-gt500-shelby-gt-h-shelby-gt-forum/

 

[Kirby Vieira]

After a little tuning and a big Whipple the results are in....View attachment 5893

Congratulations on the very impressive numbers. I'm curious about the ratio of the rear gear and how the performance stacks up against a stock or pullied GT from a roll, 40, 60 mph or whatever :cheers

 

[Cobradvr]

Kirby

First thanks for the ride during the GT Rally, Beth says hi.

We haven't driven the GT500 yet, we are still waiting on the KR wheels that we are having black chromed. Should be back and on the road soon. We will get it run against the GT. We had it tuned with a smaller pulley and it pulled 605hp on the same dyno the GT500 was checked out on... I will keep you posted on how it stands up against the GT.

Here's a pic, I will update when I get it rolling...

Best regards,
Mark

 

[scode]

Is this your car? That Whipple sounds mean:thumbsup

http://www.race2ube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=afcfc22149d77babee96&page=1&viewtype=&category=mr

Scode

 

[Kirby Vieira]

It's a great looking car. I'll look forward to the performance comparisons and also to seeing you and Beth at this year's Rally. :cheers

 

[Cobradvr]

Good find!

:banana

Scode,

That's her, I din't even know there was a video out there!! It does sound good... The Bassini exhaust makes all the difference in exhaust note. However, the exhaust change brought down the HP a little, most likely due to less back pressure according the Steve "Mase"... the guy who is tuning the car and doing the various upgades.

Mark

 

[garagelogic]

Congrats! Mine made 620hp/565tq with a 2.8 Kenne Bell and 3" pulley so numbers are similar.

 

[Cobradvr]

Check out the wheels and tires

Alcoa KR wheels, powder coated black, Nitto tires...

Project is nearing completion! Thanks to Mase

 

[Cobradvr]

Installed

 

[Indy GT]

Interesting Data

You should show this to the guys over at this Gt500 forum, they go nuts for this stuff:

http://www.shelbyforums.com/forums/2007-2008-shelby-gt500-shelby-gt-h-shelby-gt-forum/

I am not sure we go "nuts" over this stuff, just a technical curiosity for the results.

Cobradvr - A couple comments:
It is certainly clear that a Wipple blower (with higher pressure and flow capacity than the Ford OEM unit) does produce more absolute rear wheel horsepower. The graph definitely supports this fact. Incidentally it would be helpful if the tuner who gave you this chart would at least label the four curves. It is assumed the two unidentified unmodified curves are "torque" and "horsepower" with two similar unidentified curves for the modified run. Would have been nice to have had them labeled by the plot routine for clarity.

But here are a few other (maybe) less obvious conclusions one can deduce from the data.

The torque band for the OEM blower is actually quite good. More broad over the full engine rpm range (good for all around driveability) and not nearly as "peaky" as the Wipple. In fact below 2540 rpm (where much of day-to-day driving occurs) the OEM power and torque are BOTH better (ie higher) than the Wipple. Again good OVERALL driveability attribute from the OEM engine configuration.
The Wipple power and torque fall "like a rock" above 6150. The fall off is so steep it almost appears a rev-limiter interaction (?). Whereas the OEM torque and power continue well beyond the 6500 rpm axis limit of the data. In fact the OEM power continues to increase (albeit at a lower value than the Wipple) and is still increasing at 6500 rpm although torque has already turned the corner and heading down slowly.
While engineers can specifically tweak engine power bands via ignition, camshaft and fuel injection timing (as well as blower air volume, pressure and temperature if so equipped) to meet any target application, compromises are usually necessary in production OEM vehicles. Can a car owner transplant an Indy 500 blown, methanol fueled engine in his car and go faster. Absolutely! Same goes for putting a Wipple on any of our MOD5.4 Ford engines. Absolute power IS increased. But what do you sacrifice to get this higher obtainable power. Most usually driveability, or as your power curves indicate, low power output and high rpm power cut-off.
Thanks for posting the information and my comments are not intended to rain on your parade, merely to point out other engine considerations besides absolute maximum power developed.

 

[Whipple Charged]

I am not sure we go "nuts" over this stuff, just a technical curiosity for the results.

Cobradvr - A couple comments:
It is certainly clear that a Wipple blower (with higher pressure and flow capacity than the Ford OEM unit) does produce more absolute rear wheel horsepower. The graph definitely supports this fact. Incidentally it would be helpful if the tuner who gave you this chart would at least label the four curves. It is assumed the two unidentified unmodified curves are "torque" and "horsepower" with two similar unidentified curves for the modified run. Would have been nice to have had them labeled by the plot routine for clarity.

But here are a few other (maybe) less obvious conclusions one can deduce from the data.

The torque band for the OEM blower is actually quite good. More broad over the full engine rpm range (good for all around driveability) and not nearly as "peaky" as the Wipple. In fact below 2540 rpm (where much of day-to-day driving occurs) the OEM power and torque are BOTH better (ie higher) than the Wipple. Again good OVERALL driveability attribute from the OEM engine configuration.
The Wipple power and torque fall "like a rock" above 6150. The fall off is so steep it almost appears a rev-limiter interaction (?). Whereas the OEM torque and power continue well beyond the 6500 rpm axis limit of the data. In fact the OEM power continues to increase (albeit at a lower value than the Wipple) and is still increasing at 6500 rpm although torque has already turned the corner and heading down slowly.
While engineers can specifically tweak engine power bands via ignition, camshaft and fuel injection timing (as well as blower air volume, pressure and temperature if so equipped) to meet any target application, compromises are usually necessary in production OEM vehicles. Can a car owner transplant an Indy 500 blown, methanol fueled engine in his car and go faster. Absolutely! Same goes for putting a Wipple on any of our MOD5.4 Ford engines. Absolute power IS increased. But what do you sacrifice to get this higher obtainable power. Most usually driveability, or as your power curves indicate, low power output and high rpm power cut-off.
Thanks for posting the information and my comments are not intended to rain on your parade, merely to point out other engine considerations besides absolute maximum power developed.

Actually, this setup would make more below 2450 if the dyno operator went to WOT down there. What you see there is where the dyno operator went to WOT. This setup will destroy the stock blower below 2450, otherwise you wouldn't be able to spin the tires harder unless you revved to 4000 and feathered the clutch. CLEARLY NOT THE CASE!!!!!

Dustin

 

[Whipple Charged]

I am not sure we go "nuts" over this stuff, just a technical curiosity for the results.

Cobradvr - A couple comments:
It is certainly clear that a Wipple blower (with higher pressure and flow capacity than the Ford OEM unit) does produce more absolute rear wheel horsepower. The graph definitely supports this fact. Incidentally it would be helpful if the tuner who gave you this chart would at least label the four curves. It is assumed the two unidentified unmodified curves are "torque" and "horsepower" with two similar unidentified curves for the modified run. Would have been nice to have had them labeled by the plot routine for clarity.

But here are a few other (maybe) less obvious conclusions one can deduce from the data.

The torque band for the OEM blower is actually quite good. More broad over the full engine rpm range (good for all around driveability) and not nearly as "peaky" as the Wipple. In fact below 2540 rpm (where much of day-to-day driving occurs) the OEM power and torque are BOTH better (ie higher) than the Wipple. Again good OVERALL driveability attribute from the OEM engine configuration.
The Wipple power and torque fall "like a rock" above 6150. The fall off is so steep it almost appears a rev-limiter interaction (?). Whereas the OEM torque and power continue well beyond the 6500 rpm axis limit of the data. In fact the OEM power continues to increase (albeit at a lower value than the Wipple) and is still increasing at 6500 rpm although torque has already turned the corner and heading down slowly.
While engineers can specifically tweak engine power bands via ignition, camshaft and fuel injection timing (as well as blower air volume, pressure and temperature if so equipped) to meet any target application, compromises are usually necessary in production OEM vehicles. Can a car owner transplant an Indy 500 blown, methanol fueled engine in his car and go faster. Absolutely! Same goes for putting a Wipple on any of our MOD5.4 Ford engines. Absolute power IS increased. But what do you sacrifice to get this higher obtainable power. Most usually driveability, or as your power curves indicate, low power output and high rpm power cut-off.
Thanks for posting the information and my comments are not intended to rain on your parade, merely to point out other engine considerations besides absolute maximum power developed.

The Ford GT 5.4L with the Whipple W210ax makes more than the Lysholmd 2.3 from 50rpm above idle to redline, there is no drop in power, and certainly no loss in drive-ability. You have more power everywhere, and since the car is geared to go well over 200+mph, drive-ability is incredible.

 

[Kirby Vieira]

This car is probably putting down much better numbers than Shelby's big Supersnake (?) Really impressive for a current generation Mustang. Curious to hear how it does next to a FGT and what suspension mods, if any, will be required. :cheers

 

[Cobradvr]

Thanks Kirby

Thanks Kirby, the car is back is more than I ever anticipated. It pulls strong, and "feels" faster than the GT. However I have my doubts, and it will have to wait for a track day to settle.

Overall the car feels very fast, but unlike the GT, heavy. I would guess in a straight line, the GT500 has the edge. However, there is nothing like the precision of the GT. Nothing I've driven I should say, I suppose there are others out there, but I only drive Fords - call me crazy, but I'm from rural Ohio, I don't know how to spell Ferari :lol and even though I'm in my 40s, I'm still scared of my mom :eek and she doesn't like foreign anything.

I hope the following comments don’t cause more controversy:dead:. Some of you I know don’t like Whipple SCs, some of you don’t like the guy that tuned my car, etc…

I want you all to know something, you can talk all you want and post whatever you want, just like me. I respect that… :thumbsup I guess what bothers me however is opinion being proffered as fact. As a mathematician, who has worked as an engineer for almost 20 yrs (sorry to all those PE’s, I never ever meant to invade your space, and trust me, most days I wish I hadn’t), I know there are few absolutes (that is actually counter to how lots, and I would guess most mathematicians think). So check you facts, and call them opinions when they are really just opinions.:bs

Okay now one to my special thanks:

Thanks to Steve "Mase" Mason of Mase Engineering :cheershttp://maseengineering.com/blog/entry/new_pics_of_the_gt500/ He finished the GT500 project just in time for the Woodward Dream Cruise. I'm so impressed with the performance of the overall system of upgrades I'm thinking about doing another one, just a little more radical this time. Mase "has some ideas", and when he has ideas you should listen closely!

I don't have a final pic of the car to post, I will get one while in Detroit and post it. The closet thing to a final pic is the one posted above. As stated above; the car runs strong, first gear is about worthless, but will be handy at the track.

According to the Dyno results, which you can see again at Mase's website; max hp 653, max torque 583lbs/ft.

The car looks menacing...

Mase has listed the project details as private, I will ask him to post all the mods as soon as he returns from tuning cars in the UK.

He dyno'd the car after each mod, and might be helpful information to all of you contemplating mods and how much return each brings.

Bottom line, the car rocks!

See you in Detroit, if you can catch me...

Cobradvr

 

[B O N Y]

car looks great, glad your happy, isn't that what it is all about anyway?

 

[Cobradvr]

Thanks

Yes sir Bony, that is what it is all about!

Best regards,
Mark

 

[Indy GT]

Geez Cobradvr,
If your "don't cause more controversy" paragraph was aimed at my "opinions", let me clarify.

I have no opinion either way on the Wipple supercharger. I do not own one (nor do I sell them and thus have a financial interest in "defending" the graphical DATA displayed in your post) but I know others who have them on their FGT and like them. For all I care it could have been an Ingersoll Rand Model XXXX blower, and my observations on the graphical data would have been the same.

Likewise I have no idea who your "tuner" was/is and have no axe to grind with him as well. I am sure he is a fine fellow. My only comment was I wish the graphical DATA which you posted had been labeled more clearly. This certainly not a ding with the tuner. Just a comment on the graphical presentation of the test results.

As a mathmatician working in the field of engineering you must certainly be schooled in the importance and belief of actaul data derrived from engine tests. Engineers dream up ideas, build working prototypes of their dreams and go test their ideas to see if it does what it was dreamed to do. You presented four lines of recorded engine test data. I merely provided my technical interpertation (call it my opinion if you want) of the data based on my experience. I have no knowledge if one test (the Wipple) was not operated at WOT at low rpm. How would I be so informed? I believe it reasonable to assume if the dyno operator was to give you (the mathmatician and an individual appreciative of actual data) a back-to-back comparison of OEM blower to Wipple, he would have run the identical test for both units. Why in the world would he purposefully run one differently? To do so skews the results and invalidates the comparison value of the test.

We are glad you posted the information on our Forum and likewise I appreciate the technical depth and expertise many of our commentators bring to the posts. Please continue! And again I ment no disrespect or criticism to either the blower or tuner.

 

[fjpikul]

And Indy GT is a reel gud spller two! Stick to numbers both of you and let us that can use the written English language do so. Or get spell checkers.